The PINNACLE of disgusting [Smoking Ban]

Quote:

---

Your link didn't contain any evidence, only quotes from studies - which may or may not have been biased/accurate.

I have seen the results of several studies (including ones funded by cancer research organisations that were never actually published), but typically there is too small a group/duration for any conclusive evidence, or the science and conclusions have been dubious at best.

---

Your own logic can be applied to what you've said. Surely studies you've seen can also fall under the same 'may or may not have been biased/accurate' umbrella. The page I linked to contained references to several papers on smoking/cancer link. A quick search of the BMJs archives pulls up numerous references (of which here are a couple):

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...cetype=1,2,3,4 - Danish cohort study ~1.5 million people (big enough group for ya? ;) )

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...cetype=1,2,3,4

I'm playing devil's advocate a little here - I am well aware of the debate (and the anything but omniscient nature of the scientific community), but you seemed to be dismissing the arguments for a link without placing that same analysis upon your own evidence. (The University of Nottingham accept a large sum of money from the tabacco industry to close down their cancer research department - says it all to me :rolleyes: )

Quote:

---

I hope that wasn't aimed at me

---

the topic of car fumes etc. came up, I jumped in the discussion quite late, so apologies if that wasn't what was being got at.

Anyway - all of the above is a bit off topic.

Quote:

---

A middle ground allowing both sides to have a suitable drinking experience would have been a much better solution in my opinion.

---

And there lies the problem, what is this middle ground? You mention having 'proper smoking areas of pups/clubs'. As I'm sure you're no doubt aware smoke is very pervasive, and short of having airlocks and nasa quality air filters - or a completely different entrance to the place, this isn't going to be achievable. Secondly, the cost of installing such areas would completely push small pubs out of the market & all you'd have left is Weatherspoons. Sadly, in this unideal world it's just not economically viable to fall anywhere but either side of the fence - either remove it completely or not at all.

Quote:

---

which have completely ignored the fact that most smokers are decent people, and try to avoid "forcing" people to be near our smoke

---

I well aware of that, all the smokers i know go outside to smoke, and i respect that. I have no problem against people smoking where it's not going to affect those who don't want it to effect them, but I've also yet to see a separate smoking area that truely manages to keep it separate.

I can see where you guys are coming from and it must seem a bit like victimisation. Today the government's going after smoking and tomorrow they'll jump on the next most publicised campaign.

That's the problem of having a superficial nanny state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

Nope, "Smoking causes Cancer" is propoganda I'm afraid. It can be a very heavy accellerant in some cases, but (AFAIK) it has never actually been proven to be a direct cause.

---

I tried to stay out of this, but this statement I just couldn't pass up. By using that same logic, you could say that a bullet doesn't cause death. It has never been PROVEN to be a direct cause? What would constitute proof in your mind? Would you have to see some chemical from the smoke alter the DNA in such a way that a cancer occurred? It will never happen because it CAN never happen. Therefore, proof can never be obtained.

Direct causality can NEVER be proven in this case, or in most diseases. Your argument can be used to refuse all modern drugs including antibiotics. The direct causality of the malady the drugs are prescribed for can NEVER be determined.

If you therefore choose not to use any antibiotics, antimalarial, or other drugs or vaccines, that's fine, but I don't agree with you, and will not abstain myself. In those cases, we can both be happy. However, when it comes to smoking, your demand for a level of evidence that is demonstrably impossible to attain is affecting MY health (economically, socially, and physically). Why should I accept your addiction to sticking a pin in other people simply because you assert that nobody can prove that the pin hurts them?

In short, your argument is based on the assumption that the foundation of modern medicine is utterly wrong in this one case. That begs the obvious question: Do you feel that other epidemiological evidence (the basis for pretty nearly all medicine) is also wrong simply because direct proof is impossible?

Thanks for the decent arguments guys.. this is gonna be a long one!
(as it's gone 1am I may be a little less than coherent!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

A quick search of the BMJs archives pulls up numerous references (of which here are a couple):

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...cetype=1,2,3,4 - Danish cohort study ~1.5 million people (big enough group for ya? ;) )

---

That's the first time that anyone has brought anything to my attention with any scientific weight, as opposed to being based on opinion (their own, or of researchers).

It's gonna take me a while to get thru it all, but if the 'headlines' are supported by the document (which I presume they will be), then this is the closest we can get to full 'proof' for this kind of situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

you seemed to be dismissing the arguments for a link without placing that same analysis upon your own evidence.

---

I was dismissive as there was nothing there - but you have now provided a suitable link. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

(The University of Nottingham accept a large sum of money from the tabacco industry to close down their cancer research department - says it all to me :rolleyes: )

---

I've never heard that before, and I must say I'm very surprised. I have heard contrary reports, but due to circumstances these are effectively hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

As I'm sure you're no doubt aware smoke is very pervasive, and short of having airlocks and nasa quality air filters - or a completely different entrance to the place, this isn't going to be achievable. Secondly, the cost of installing such areas would completely push small pubs out of the market & all you'd have left is Weatherspoons. Sadly, in this unideal world it's just not economically viable to fall anywhere but either side of the fence - either remove it completely or not at all.

---

It is certainly possible for large establishments (the air filters are actually fairly cheap) - it is possible in offices too (like the last place I worked).

I do understand your argument, but it has been proven (by Weatherspoons no less) that non-smoking bars can do well even if they are surrounded by smoking establishments. Of course we can only speculate how this would have changed things for the smaller venues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I tried to stay out of this, but this statement I just couldn't pass up. By using that same logic, you could say that a bullet doesn't cause death. It has never been PROVEN to be a direct cause? What would constitute proof in your mind?
...
In short, your argument is based on the assumption that the foundation of modern medicine is utterly wrong in this one case.

---

Erm.. bullets have been proven to cause death. What I wanted to see (and now have) is something of the quality that bushmobile linked to, rather than small-scale or biased studies (which is what the vast majority of tobacco/cancer studies are).

I have no problem with medical studies for new drugs etc, as they have stringent regulations - unlike most studies into the tobacco/cancer link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

...is affecting MY health (economically, socially, and physically). Why should I accept your addiction to sticking a pin in other people simply because you assert that nobody can prove that the pin hurts them?

---

I don't force others to smoke, and avoid smoking near non-smokers given the chance (at my last job I was allowed to smoke at my desk but still went to a separate smoking area, for 5 years).

In the UK, smoking is economically 'good' for non-smokers, due to the very large taxes imposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

I can see where you guys are coming from and it must seem a bit like victimisation. Today the government's going after smoking and tomorrow they'll jump on the next most publicised campaign.

That's the problem of having a superficial nanny state.

---

I couldn't agree more. :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

In the UK, smoking is economically 'good' for non-smokers, due to the very large taxes imposed.

---

That is a highly simplistic statement. You, yourself have been (rightly) arguing against the reliance upon hearsay and unfounded opinion in the course of this debate.

Perhaps you might want to check out the 'International Review of the Health and Economic Impact of the Regulation of Smoking in Public Places' funded by NHS Health Scotland (long version / short version)

I have no intention of reading the full thing, but the little I read indicated that there are predicted net benefits in the region of £4.5 billion after 30 years (assuming I'm reading it correctly, it is very late :ehh: ).

Whatever the case, the tax on cigarettes seems to make up only a small proportion of the economics surrounding the smoking ban.

While this is an important issue, I think that much more important problem is that so many young kids are smoking, and the government should concentrate more on preventing that.

A bullet has never been proven to cause death that I am aware of. We have seen the hole created by the bullet, but nobody has proven that the subsequent death was caused by the hole, it has simply been assumed. I agree that this is evidence that is FAR more obvious to the average viewer, but the same principle applies: "This thing was done, which had these potentially harmful effects. This result happened. We infer that the action was the cause of the reaction, though we have not shown the actual mechanism for each case."

Basically, we never prove anything medically to a mathematically rigorouse level. We make a model of what we think is happening, and weigh the evidence that our model is correct versus the evidence that some other model is correct. In the case of smoking, the weight of evidence favors the hypothesis that smoking causes diseases, but there are other models that could be put forward. I am not aware of any that have anywhere near the weight of evidence as the Smoking is Harmful model has. However, all scientific results are measured in this fashion, though some are disguised behind P values and other things.

As for smoking, it has no real impact on me. It seems that there are very few Americans who smoke now, though that may be a regional thing. I work for an agency that banned smoking in all of its buildings and vehicles long before it became fashionable. How and why was before my time, and I have never bothered asking. I rarely encounter smokers, and get the smell of smoke only about once a month at most. Therefore, I have heard people talk for and against....well, mostly against, but it is not a personal issue for me, so I have never payed close attention.

I have always heard about the huge cost to health systems caused by smokers based on their increased incidence of respiratory problems. Whether this is true or not is not something I have studied. I would point out that when I was managing a crew, it was alcohol that caused the greatest expenses for us, and the most trouble. Smokers never caused any issues except that they had to go puff on those sticks at every break.

Scott Adams take on it.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/

Quote:

---

Take smoking in public; I favor banning that because I don’t like to be around it. According to Penn and Teller – notable skeptics – there isn’t any good science proving second hand smoke hurts people. So I’ll stop using that argument. But there isn’t any science that says littering hurts you either, and I’m against that because I don’t want to look at it. Second hand smoke is like litter in my nose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

In the UK, smoking is economically 'good' for non-smokers, due to the very large taxes imposed.

---

:eek:
Ah that's okay then. Perhaps you can explain to those people dying of lung cancer, who have never smoked in their life, that they are dying to financially benefit the tax system?

If it means a couple of billion shortfall in the NHS then so be it, smoking in public places needed to be banned, and seeing as the majority of the population supported it (and we do live in a democracy after all) then this is a case where the politicians are finally doing something their constituents wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...cnn_topstories

Unfortunately, this frivolous ban won't be fought or resisted. To a non-smoker, this isn't an issue. But this is just like the pro-life/pro-choice abortion issue. You have a bunch of irrelevant individuals (such as men in the Supreme Court) voting on a matter they have little to do with.

---

Hey guys, this view is bound to fuel/start a debate on whether a smoking ban is good or not, and further if smoking itself is good or not. So I am reporting this post to the moderator to preserve the sanctity of the World Events forum.





















































Oh, excuse me if you actually believed that. I really wanted to just check if I have been banned from here.

.

I dont fall for any of the money related arguments and I fully agree with the non smokers that they have a right to breath clean air where ever they decide to go.

The only thing that I dislike is the governement trying to prevent me from carrying out my decision to do something I know is bad for me, in a way that wouldnt affect others (This is not strictly true as it would obviously affect my family and is a very selfish thing to do).

However It should be a landlords decision if him lets people smoke in his house or not, if he permits it then I would have the option to go in there and smoke just as the non smoker has the option not to and visa versa. The same goes for any employees there maybe.

Smoking aside it is mainly loosing the freedom of choice that is frustrating me as I am pretty sure alcohol is the next thing on the list even if its a long time away or just other life choices in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishGuy

Smoking aside it is mainly loosing the freedom of choice that is frustrating me as I am pretty sure alcohol is the next thing on the list even if its a long time away or just other life choices in general.

---

Alcohol was tried, and was singularly unsuccessful.

I wonder what effect outlawing cigarettes would actually do. There would be something of a black market, which would be profitable, but who would be using them?

1) Current addicts, because the addiction is pretty strong.

2) ????

At first I would think that there would be people using them simply because they are illegal. However, nicotine doesn't produce a reaction as strong as alcohol, LSD, coke, etc. The effect is rather moderate, the taste is rather bad, and the smell is fairly replusive. Would people actually bother with doing such a lame drug simply because it was illegal?

Frankly, I think we should outlaw cigaretts just to find out. If we found that there was a segment of the population that used them simply because they were illegal, we should take the logical next step and try making it illegal to smeer cow dung all over your body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Alcohol was tried, and was singularly unsuccessful.

---

The cops have a lot more guns now than they did the first time they tried it. It didn't work last time because we still had the right to bear arms and challenge the government. "Organized Crime" as the man calles it, are no longer better armed than law enforcement. Thank the anti-gun dieckheads for taking that and our freedom to do keg stands away.
:cry:

On a serious note. No drugs alcahol tobacco should be illegal. Only the mass marketing and manufacturing for intent of distribution of these things should be Illegal. If BillyBob Clampett wants to fire up his still and make a batch of shine and enjoy it with one of his home grown cigars, what the hell gives any one else the right to stop him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

... There would be something of a black market, which would be profitable, but who would be using them?

1) Current addicts, because the addiction is pretty strong.

2) ????
...

Frankly, I think we should outlaw cigaretts just to find out.

---

I think the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens, and would not bother slumming to a street corner to get a cigfix.

I agree, lets get them outlawed.

I agree.

Just let me stockpile a few 1,000 cartons just in case I can't kick it.

I quit as of yesterday. I'm on the verge of killing someone. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

I have no intention of reading the full thing, but the little I read indicated that there are predicted net benefits in the region of £4.5 billion after 30 years (assuming I'm reading it correctly, it is very late :ehh: ).

Whatever the case, the tax on cigarettes seems to make up only a small proportion of the economics surrounding the smoking ban.

---

I haven't read it fully either, but it sounds like a reasonable estimate based on the figures. I'm not sure if the effects would be 'forwarded on' to the customers tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

A bullet has never been proven to cause death that I am aware of. We have seen the hole created by the bullet, but nobody has proven that the subsequent death was caused by the hole, it has simply been assumed. I agree that this is evidence that is FAR more obvious to the average viewer, ....

---

I see what you mean, but the effects of the bullet are very rapid, as opposed to smoking, which can take decades - giving other factors (such as career and environment) the chance to take effect too (which believe me, has been used to the advantage of the 'funders' of a large proportion of studies - on both sides).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishGuy

Scott Adams take on it....
I fully agree with the non smokers that they have a right to breath clean air where ever they decide to go.

---

Good comments, I agree with his view, and yours. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Ah that's okay then. Perhaps you can explain to those people dying of lung cancer, who have never smoked in their life, that they are dying to financially benefit the tax system?

---

Please pay attention to what I have written throughout the thread. I agree that you shouldn't be forced to be near smoke, and have actively promoted that for several years. I am saying that smokers should have an option of smoking and drinking, albeit in a separate area (for those premises that can afford it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

seeing as the majority of the population supported it (and we do live in a democracy after all) then this is a case where the politicians are finally doing something their constituents wanted.

---

What makes you so sure it was a majority who supported it? Do you know anyone who was asked? I'm not saying you are wrong, but this seems to be completely unsupported (I saw many interviews, with only a low percentage of supporters). My impression from reports I have seen/read is that most of the pressure on politicians came from organisations such as breweries.

bushmobile's first link says that over 30% of the population smoke, and this does not seem to does not cover Roll-your-own (GV etc), which sells around half the quantity of pre-made cigarettes. Plus of course there is a large amount of imports, especially as prices are much lower in other parts of the EU many smokers buy in bulk when we holiday within the EU.

As there are that many smokers, I see any majority supporting a ban being small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

I think the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens, and would not bother slumming to a street corner to get a cigfix.

---

I woul agree with that, but not the next bit. ;)

You will find that some smokers also want a ban as they want to quit ;)

Indeed. Besides having separate smoking areas would be impractical, epensive and unforceable. However with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all going for a total ban the likelihood of England following suit was likely, and if they had gone for a partial ban it would have been obivous that it was due to pressure and not for health reasons. A total ban suggests the reasons were health related.

I wonder what the public places actually means.

i.e Will I still be able to smoke at the Football Stadium. The ground allready has smoking and non smoking areas, and being a stadium sort of outdoors so is well ventillated but because there is a roof do you think it will be covered in the banmeaning the smoking areas will nolonger be allowed?

Hmmm, good question. Well I know the Millennium Stadium is the same with designated smoking areas, but these are in the aisles around the stadium. These will probably be included in the ban because it will theoretically affect those around them.

I suppose it would mean any enclosed space (anywhere with a roof?) that could affect others in a 1m radius?

I believe a public place is classed as any area that a member of public can access either FOC or by paying a fee. So... things like member's clubs (which are truely invite only) and an individuals homes are exempt, but shopfloors, pubs, clubs etc. aren't.

No, private clubs are NOT exempt. Probably the only places that are not exempt are in the open (in the street) and your home

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

No, private clubs are NOT exempt. Probably the only places that are not exempt are in the open (in the street) and your home

---

. . . and of course the bar in the House of Parliament. Really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishGuy

I wonder what the public places actually means.

i.e Will I still be able to smoke at the Football Stadium. The ground allready has smoking and non smoking areas, and being a stadium sort of outdoors so is well ventillated but because there is a roof do you think it will be covered in the banmeaning the smoking areas will nolonger be allowed?

---

I asked my club secretary..

Quote:

---

This is something being discussed by the Football League and clubs will be advised in due course of any action which has to be taken.

---

That is a good question as it seems to fall half and half

Quote:

---

No, private clubs are NOT exempt.

---

I meant exempt from being public (didn't phrase it very well admittedly) - i.e. they are probably not legally public, hence the reason for the debate about including them. In my opinion they should also be exempt from the smoking ban.

Regarding football stadiums, if they're all-seater then I guess since your seat is assigned, you can't (in theory) move if the person next to you is smoking and so they should be included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

Regarding football stadiums, if they're all-seater then I guess since your seat is assigned, you can't (in theory) move if the person next to you is smoking and so they should be included.

---

Then you have chosen a seat in the wrong area of the ground, there are smoing areas and non smoking areas.

Since when have you been able to choose your seat in a stadium? The stadium seating are ALL non-smoking (at least it is at Twickenham, Lansdowne Rd, Murrayfield and Millennium Stadium), there are smoking areas in the corridors.

bushmobile, I can see your point about private clubs but remember the staff also have to work there so I can see why they were included in the ban. In the end they couldn't justify the ban for health reasons if specific places were exempt. It had to be either a total ban, or no ban. It was the only way

Yes I take your point about the stadiums you mentioned, but at many grounds in the football league you can chhose your seats in either smoking or non smoking areas both for season tickets and match day tickets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

I agree.

Just let me stockpile a few 1,000 cartons just in case I can't kick it.

---

:lol:
When I was in college, my calculus professor told us how he used to make a few bucks by smuggling cartons of cigs from New Hampshire into Massachusettes. Apparently the tax difference was such that he could make a profit that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

:lol:
When I was in college, my calculus professor told us how he used to make a few bucks by smuggling cartons of cigs from New Hampshire into Massachusettes. Apparently the tax difference was such that he could make a profit that way.

---

Thats generally what goes on here, peopple nip over the Channel to France on Cig runs. With lowcost airlines like Jet2 I know a lad who flew to Barcelona for £10 stayed for an hour bought a suitcase full of cigs and flew stariaght back, sold them and made about £10 on each box.

Not good if your caught though

We've seen that going on for years on our shores as well. English day tourists raiding the duty frees like bees to a giant pot of honey.

Our tax is huge thats why

On the whole 'protecting the staff' issue, if I hired a housekeeper, would that mean I couldn't smoke in my own home?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

On the whole 'protecting the staff' issue, if I hired a housekeeper, would that mean I couldn't smoke in my own home?

---

Yes. The housekeeper would be your employee, and your home would be considered the workplace.

You could, I suspect, under current UK legislation insist that she wears her French maid uniform, though :)

Quote:

---

You could, I suspect, under current UK legislation insist that she wears her French maid uniform, though

---

That's settled it then, time to place my want ad. :bigyello: